search this blog

Friday, June 17, 2016

The genetic structure of the world's first farmers (Lazaridis et al. 2016 preprint)

Huge one from the Laz at bioRxiv:

We report genome-wide ancient DNA from 44 ancient Near Easterners ranging in time between ~12,000-1,400 BCE, from Natufian hunter-gatherers to Bronze Age farmers. We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a 'Basal Eurasian' lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other. The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from local hunter-gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter-gatherers of Europe to drastically reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia.

The distinctness of the Anatolian (linguistic !) branches doesn't rest upon the Anatolian (geographical) homeland to be correct. We all know it isn't. Most people (but obviously not you) can envisage a scenario where Anatolian is the most divergent IE (of which we have records for) without requiring them to have actually originated in Anatolia.

moreover, my original point was the very need for more aDNA from Anatolia, & for good measure, Greece - in order to finally chose between the 2 remaining hypotheses (i.e. an exclusively steppe scenario, or '2nd staging point steppe" scenario).

To which you tried to suggest are irelavant, because ideas about language shift (albeit with no empirical or theoretical substance to back up such claims), and now back-peddled to 'The anatolians, on the other hand do matter.'

@Davidski,Remember when I kept asking about Kostias/satsurblia? Because I was looking for a connection of my Shulaveri-Shomu and bell beaker?

Someone here mentioned Genetiker, and he has a interesting post from May, which turnout to be a linking of the "Pine Green" in his plots to sort of Satsurblia/Kostia. In his post, Genetiker states the following:

"A striking feature of the plot, which has appeared in my previous plots, and which cries out for an explanation, is the significant amount of the pine green component, which peaks in Georgians, throughout all of the modern European samples. This component DOES NOT appear in the HUNTER-GATHERERS, or in the EARLY NEOLITHIC FARMERS, and it is also almost completely ABSENT IN THE PIT GRAVE samples FROM THE PONTIC-CASPIAN STEPPE, and the CORDED WARE and TIMBER GRAVE samples. It does appear in the Chinchorro mummy sample from around 4000 BC. It also APPEARS in the pre-BELL-BEAKER COPPER AGE samples from EL PORTALÓN cave in Spain, and especially in El Portalón 3, which I discovered to belong to Y HAPLOGROUP R1B-M269. Some of the pine green component SHOWS UP IN THE BELL BEAKER AND UNETICE samples of Central Europe, and in the Nordic and Irish Bronze Age samples. My best explanation for the significant presence of this component in THESE SAMPLES IS THAT IT IS SOMEHOW LINKED WITH THE SPREAD OF R1B-L51."

To someone who defends the theory from Shulaveri-Shomu to Bell Beaker, or if you rather have it from those Satsurblia bitches to the Iberia Oestrimni Warriors the appropriate comment will always be: -- No shit, sherlocks! :-)

Yeah, that steppe theory is really looking solid for precursors of R1b in Western europe (/sarc).

Does someone have any take on the Basal Eurasian subject? These new samples, far from making it easier, they seem to have made it more complicated. The paper's attempt to estimate the amount of admixture in each population only shows how elusive this component is.

The good news is that whatever BE is, we now have samples from both east and west that are more basal than any other population (modern or ancient), so for our models we won't need a ghost anymore.

"The pine green component is informative, because it shows that all modern Europeans have a significant amount of Caucasus-related admixture BEYOND what was present in the Pit Grave and Corded Ware people. As I said above, this extra Caucasus-related admixture seems to be due at least in part to the spread of R1b-L51 people"

Yes, those models are a bit strange, but I guess it gets better if you look at the best model for each population. For example, Anatolia_ChL looks out of place in that PCA, but the best model for it is 67% Anatolia_N and 33% Iran_ChL, which would place it in a more expected area.

BTW, Armenia Chalcolithic is from 4300-4000 BCE, so rather contemporary with Khvalynsk. It's best modelled as 18.3% EHG, 29.2% Iran_N and 52.5% Anatolia_N. That would give some 40% Yamnaya admixture. I'd like to see those samples when they become available.

Yes that's somewhat but not wholly surprising Obviously some ANE like population was moving to the south Caspian region at an early date Itl be interesting to see what's a better fit - Khvynsk or some Afontova - type group

@ Davidski and Alberto, yeah, we can try applying the D-stats + 4mix / nMonte methods, and see what those find us among other things.

Btw, realized in terms of contrasting the qpAdm inferred proportions and actual PCA positions, their Extended Data Figure 5 already does that quite nicely and openly, and worth looking at.

By far the worst comparing mixture proportions to PCA is modeling Anatolia_Neolithic as Iran_Neolithic plus Levant_Neolithic (and then there are problems with all populations who descend from Anatolia_Neolithic, when it's not used as a ancestor in favor of "The Four").

Like you say Alberto, the models seem more consistent with PCA position if Anatolia_Neolithic is allowed to act as an ancestor in the model.

So I think we'll find that we need a Anatolia_Neolithic column and row to actually model Europeans properly, and that Anatolia Neolithic has distinctive drift that is necessary. (Europeans sharing extra drift with Anatolia Neolithic to the exclusion of Levant Neolithic they pretty much note already in their paper, although they don't explicitly model how much of this is due to greater WHG / Villabruna clade ancestry in Anatolia_Neolithic).

CHG also seems to have some discrepancy between the model and PCA positions.

On this CHG and on CHG and the steppe, page 83 of the SI from SI7 is pretty interesting.

Basically it seems CHG and Iran_Neolithic work similarly under qpAdm for the O9 set. Then when groups like Anatolia_Neolithic, Natufians, Levant_N are added to the outgroups, using CHG as the ancestor for Steppe_EBA underpredicts similarity to all these groups, while using Iran_N tends to overpredict similarity.

It seems like CHG, although it seems probably more "EuroHG" admixed than Iran_Neolithic, is more isolated from the rest of the ME than the actual ancestors of Yamnaya (possibly hence why we were tend to get some low measure of Anatolia_Neolithic contribution in Yamnaya in our D-stat models?). Yet the ancestors of Yamnaya seem to have been more isolated than Iran_Neolithic.

So the final model compromises by adding some of both CHG:Iran_Neolithic in a proportion 40:60. That suggests that the Near Eastern ancestors of Yamnaya were, as a simple and more probable interpretation, transitional (genetically and geographically) between CHG and Iran_Neolithic. Or, less parsimoniously, otherwise that they Yamnaya's Near Eastern ancestors were more isolated from the the rest of the Early Neolithic ME compared to Iran_Neolithic but had another geographical origin.

Also yes, Alberto, the Armenia_ChL is pretty contemporary (relative to these time scales) with Khavalynsk and also seems by PCA, ADMIXTURE and qpAdm no more or less EHG than later samples from the same area. So question of is there some link between Khavalynsk and the steppe eneolithic there, or perhaps that level was already there from earlier in history (there's no Armenian earlier Neolithic samples here, after all).

This is exciting! Since my archaeological training is in Levantine archaeology, this study stirs up a lot of possibilities. The dating of the 3 Levantine BA samples to about 2500-2100 BCE fits in the EBIII period and this period witnessed a large immigration from the NE of Kura-Araxes people and pots: Khirbet Kerak Ware in nearby Galilee/Jordan.I believe that the two samples--a J1 and a likely J2b-M205, both well represented in the area reflect this CHG input via KA culture from Georgia/East Anatolia/Armenia.

I am seeing that the percentange of "Middle Eastern" mt-DNA in Europeans threw down from 99,9% to 50%. From this step the next update will throw down to 25% and so on. And, what has to do Northern Anatolia or Caucasus or Iran with the Semitic Middle East?My K1a1b1e, sister clade of the most diffused Jewish K1a1b1a, is certainly born in Tuscany and expanded to the Isles very likely during the Roman Empire.I published thousands of letters about Italian and European mt, and, when the aDNA from Italy will be tested better, you'll find many haplogroups surprising for you but not for me as the Villabruna R1b1a of 14000 years ago.

@rob "moreover, my original point was the very need for more aDNA from Anatolia, & for good measure, Greece - in order to finally chose between the 2 remaining hypotheses (i.e. an exclusively steppe scenario, or '2nd staging point steppe" scenario"

Greeks don't matter. Anatolian is the first to branch off and the most realistic prospect for where Anatolian, and thus early PIE, originated if not for the steppe is anatolia. But the anatolian hypothesis is pretty well debunked.

"1) that R-L23 is the relevant R1b haplogroup for IE2) that Bell Beakers derive from Yamnaya3) that R-L51 will be found in Western steppes, when I demonstrated that to-day the sister clade R1b-L51-PF7589 is pretty at o,oo% Easterward Italy."

So I presume you are contesting that R-L23 originated outside the steppe. In italy you think?

R-L23 was dominant in the Eastern and Southern Yamnaya. The yamnaya existed not long after the birth of R-L23. You would therefore expect that R-L23 had an origin close to the steppe. I think the lineage that would become L51 existed in the western yamnaya.

I presume you favor an italian origin of R-L23. Then what migration would you use to explain the dominance of R-L23 in the yamnaya?

Nirjhar007, R-M415 (xM269) 4700 years ago? What do you think it does mean?First of all we are in Armenia. Armenia is rich of R-L23 (above all L277), and about the upstream subclades, for instance R1b1-L389+, ancestor of all the European subclades, Armenia has only 1 haplotype, that with YCAII=23-23, whereas Italy has three haplotypes (YCA==18-22. 18-23- and 23-23), thus no surprise to find that haplotype only 4700 years ago, and it could be also the R1b1-L389-, carachteristic of Asia and present also in India (Joshi and Raza) and in Central Asia, and whose origin is very likely arond the Caucasus.

Colin Welling, I am studying these haplotypes from ten years and have given a wide theory about that. So far no surprise to me, neither the R1b1a at Villabruna 14000 years ago nor the R-M415(xM269) in Armenia, both if it is R-M278*, R1b1-L389-YCAII=23-23 and R-M73. So far everything is in line with my theory. If something surprising will happen, I'll be the first to take that into account.

It has been proposed that modern Indians are a mixture of two ancestralcomponents, an Ancestral North Indian (ANI) component related to modern WestEurasians and an Ancestral South Indian component related more distantly to theOnge (19) Kotias has proven the best ancient surrogate for the former (12). We usedD-statistics to formally assess the extent to which Kotias and GD13a relate to the ANIcomponent in modern Indian populations. For all modern southern Asian populationswe tested, Kotias was a better putative source than GD13a (Fig. S9, Table S6).

„ what they don't consider is that Yamnaya might actually be EHG, CHG and CT. And I reckon this is what Yamnaya really is.“

At least going by their modelling in Figure 4b that would probably result in too much WHG ancestry. If the proportions in Fig. 4B are correct, I'd rather suspect something Middle Eastern like Uruk influence perhaps.

To me it's always been shortsighted to simplify the debate around the PIE homeland to a duel between the steppe theory and Renfrew's Anatolian theory. Yet I know this is what has been done in many papers on ancient DNA and in some papers on the Bayesian modelling of the IE tree. Partly probably because of ignorance on the side of the involved scientists who were not trained linguists, and on the other hand because of the huge publicity Renfrew's theory had received. But there are certainly other geographical areas that might seem to fit as the PIE homeland, somewhat further to the east of Anatolia.

Going by their modelling in Fig. 4A, Iran_ChL expanded hugely, it contributed 43% to the Steppe_EMBA and 33% to Anatolia_ChL (dated to 3700 BC). And via the steppe it got to western Europe and to India. So it might look like a reasonable candidate for PIE. However, there are two problems with this interpretation: 1. The lack of R1a/R1b in Iran_ChL. Even if the Steppe_EMBA were not the PIE, it can hardly be doubted that they played a crucial role in the spread of IE. And they were almost exclusively R1a/R1b, which had already been common in EHG and the Steppe Chalcolithic. So it seems like the Iran_ChL admixture on the steppe came rather via females than from an expanding warlike West Asian elite. 2. West Asia wasn't yet dominated by IE speakers by 3700 BC, when Iran_ChL admixture already made up 33% of the ancestry of Northwestern Anatolians.

An alternative, but not mutually exclusive, explanation for this pattern is that GD13a might have received genetic input from a source equally distant from all other European populations, and thus basal to them.

Let's put it this way, the steppe hypothesis is super solid, that being said "female exogamy" to explain chg/iranian HGs in bronze age steppe is a internet only theory that makes little to no sense, a founder effect or natural selection make more sense to me, after all the high percetages of r1b in western europe are from a bottleneck/founder effect situation and are way higher then the real steppe bronze age admixture (and bronze age BB probably still had some r1a that got lost while migrating west).

I was casually browsing through the eupedia's J2 and E1b1 map in Europe, it's fairly obvious that these 2 hapoloprups tend to be stronger in SE Europe although at the same time they still reach >5% frequency in northern Europe and they are on a cline with no big drops, how did they got there if they are not from EEF? Maybe a separate zagros/natufian mix stormed Europe and arrived far north up to scandinavia and the uk, or maybe not. I think that a far better explaination is given us if we pay attention to the anatolian chalcolithic sample. Here we have an individual that has ancestry from both natufians and iranian HGs. He was from western anatolia and maybe is a good proxy for ancient SE europeans in that time frame (probably they had more EEF and no EHG). If those people had trade routes and contacts with BB we can explain those hapologrops and the extra CHG/Natufians admixture in northern Europe/Spain.

Interesting in the projection of the ancient samples onto the modern PCA: The Chalcolithic Northwestern Anatolian plots with modern Cypriots. It's well known that a Cypriot-like element affected Italy...

While the Bronze Age southern Levantines plot with modern Palestinians.

Did the slight EHG admixture in Iran_HotuIIIb come from the Caucasus or rather via central Asia? I think the latter would be closer geographically, and this would imply an EHG-related presence in central Asia.

It's obvious that there was an increase of EHG ancestry in Armenia, from the EBA to the MLBA, e.g. from Figure 4a. As there were no EHG living at that time this can only mean steppe_BA ancestry. And if it was in Armenia it may easily have reached Anatolia at a later stage, and maybe we're seeing there the early IE Anatolians.

Note: the sample GD13a analyzed in Gallego-Llorente et al. seems to be the same as I1290 from Lazaridis' paper:

Quote from Lazaridis et al.:

The following six Ganj Dareh individuals (all petrous bone samples) are included in this study. None has a direct radiocarbon date:• GD13A (I1290): 30-50 year-old male from level C.

Quote from Gallego-Llorente et al.:

The individual analysed was part of burial 13, containing three individuals and recovered in level C in 1971 from the floor of a brick-walled structure. The individual sampled, 13A, was a 30-50 year old female; the other individuals in the burial unit were a second adult (13 and an adolescent (13).

In Lazaridis et al. sample described as male, however in supplementary tables it genetic sex given as female and its possible Y-chromosome is not listed in supplementary.

"Interesting in the projection of the ancient samples onto the modern PCA: The Chalcolithic Northwestern Anatolian plots with modern Cypriots. It's well known that a Cypriot-like element affected Italy...

A cypriot-like element that never existed in the levant, the infamous theory (and a just a racist one with no evidence whatsoever) was that the ancient levant was more EEF and they got replaced by arab untermenschen, now we know that they never been that way. Of course some people here still haven't acknowledge how off they were on their predictions about the ancient levant dna.

So far so good ...but the conclusion after that is mind boggling and is symptomatic of the craziness when you deal with things south asian

The author implies that CHG travelled from georgia to ukraine and then back to south asia via kazakhstanlets compare that trajectory with the distance between georgia and mehergarh(simple diffusion).This tortuous trajectory 5x the straight path is based on

1) steppe migration to south asia (no evidence, just joining dots because of lack of intervening samples)2) linkage disequilibrium (this only gives us a time line no geography)

Perhaps the steppe hypothesis has great merit and maybe turn out to be true .... but this is pathetic.

So, there was a R1b1 haplotype from a Kura-Araxes burial in early Bronze Age Armenia? Freakin' sweet! Hope we can get better resolution for the P1* sample from Iran. It would be a big surprise for a lot of people if it too turned out to be some type of R1b; myself included.

You are right. They do matter a lot. But the steppe-hypothesis has an enormous lot going for it: It's area can be derived *independantly* from:

1) PIE's close relationship with both proto-Uralic and Caucasian.2) The fact that IE roots have a number of biological features (no word for tiger!, as David once put it) which put it there.3) Archaeological evidence: Yamnaya as source was not invented after DNA discovery's, it was suggested more than once on the basis of archaeological data.

Each one may be not enough. But the three of 'm are. DNA confirmed it. That is the big case for the steppe theory IMHO.

I did not mean that the Kura-Araxes sample being R1b1 was a surprise, as many have thought that R1b males were involved with the Kura-Araxes culture for years now. There are also connections between the arsenical copper weaponry and tools used in the Kura-Araxes culture and north in the steppes according to Gimbutas, so not really surprising.

I would find it surprising if R1b haplotypes were already present in Neolithic Iran, though. V88 and dead end branches excluded.

@Dude,I agree. that would be a surprise. I mean M413 probably ok. But P25 or M269 would be a surprise.

I just wish Bertille Lyonnet had/has manage to extract DNA from the samples she got at Shulaveri. If I am correct one will see the popup of P25/M269 by 6 to 5 millennia BC. Its the same stock you see later across the Caucasus mountains to the northern part into the steppe and also in Nile Delta on their way to Iberia to be Bell beaker.

I finally read the thing, rather than just browse it whilst half asleep.

The ghost modelling is very interesting/new. I think this sort of analysis could prove very fruitful for South Asians. It's quite unfortunate that they don't attempt this.

Although, one must applaud the rigor seen in "Supplementary Information 9: Constraints on the origin of Ancestral North Indians", seems to be the most exhaustive exploration of South Asia seen yet in a published paper, using aDNA. Although, that isn't saying much, as there hasn't really been any published work on South Asian genetics using aDNA. David has done more in this respect than anyone I know. In fact, I'd say that David has almost cracked South Asian genetic history, here:

Regardless, they basically nail ANI as being a mix between the Steppe/Eastern Europe and Iran/the Near East, which we've known for some time.

But the problem is that they can't model South Asians as Sintashta/Andronovo + Near East + Onge/Han. Rather, they can model South Asians as EHG + Near East + Onge/Han, Steppe_Eneolithic + Near East + Onge/Han, and Yamnaya/Poltavka/Afanasevo + Near East + Onge/Han. The EHG percentages are huge, comparable to Northern Europeans (which is expected, most analyses that use EHG tend to have South Central Asians like the Kalash as comparable to the most northern-shifted contemporary Europeans). Same with the Yamnaya/Poltavka/Afanasevo percentages, the Kalash equal the most steppe-admixed contemporary Northern European populations (again, we've seen that before).

But is that reasonable? The only option I see for this to hold would involve Central/South Asians receiving their steppe admixture from populations which were predominately Yamnaya/Poltavka/Afanasevo. This isn't improbable. David pointed us to the Srubnaya outlier, she was basically an EHG sample. If the Sintashta/Andronovo-related waves which reached South Asia possessed considerable admixture from people like the Srubnaya outlier, everything could easily be explained. We know there are still unsampled steppe populations (Indian L657 has yet to be found on the steppe), so we'll see if that holds.

The only other option would be to have an ancestral population in South Central Asia that was predominantly EHG, but with some Iranian Neolithic ancestry. That seems much less likely than the possibility noted above. The only supporting evidence this notion has for itself would be the Mesolithic Iranian with an extra 9% EHG, compared to Neolithic Iranians. One wonders where that came from (perhaps, South Central Asia)?

BMAC data is going to be essential, to decide which scenario is in tune with how things went down. Although, perhaps the Rakhigarhi data will be enough. I guess we'll have to wait and see, everything is far from settled.

Anyway, it would have been nice to see modelling of CHG and these new Iranian genomes using Afontova Gora3, rather than EHG and MA1. I echo Matt here, all of those models in the paper would benefit greatly from the Fu et al. data (and would probably turn out quite differently).

Also, they should actually try and see if Onge still appears to be a good proxy for ASI (I doubt it, based on what I've seen over 2 years with various analyses by David, Chad, Kurd at Anthrogenica, Everest at Anthrogenica, etc), rather than just assume this to be the case. Then again, the focus of the paper isn't geared toward such questions, it's about Neolithisation.

I guess the issue of focus is also why there wasn't much of a formal exploration concerning phylogeny/relationships between these samples and modern people. Even the relationships between these ancient samples weren't explicated in an intensive manner. Again, that isn't a failing, considering the aims of the paper.

Anyway, I'm sure David can try some very interesting analyses, once he gets the data. For example, qpGraph is now a part of ADMIXTOOLS, so David can explore ancient phylogenies involving both the new genomes in this paper and the Fu et al. data. In addition, TreeMix is an awesome/indispensable tool as well, since it is unsupervised.

@dude,not only arsenical copper...Wasnt it Lazaridis that said Yamnaya was EHG and something from the southern Caucasus?- yeah... southern Caucasus shulaveri R1b Stock fleeing those Ubaid J1 and J2 mean SOBs...

Yes, Yamnaya was modeled as 50/50 EHG and something Armenian-like at one point and then as a EHG and CHG, and now as ~57/43 EHG/Chalcolithic Iranian. Let's see what David and others come up with when they get the new data.

With ancient R1b samples popping up everywhere from Villabruna to the Samara Valley and the Armenian highlands, I'm not sure what to make of it all at the moment.

Don't try to follow single lineages to support your theory. , but aggregate data But you're quite right in that whatever connexions were occurring north & south of Caucasus, K-A is too late; it had to be an earlier stage

Tweet from LazaridisIosif Lazaridis ‏@iosif_lazaridisI1635 (Armenia_EBA) is R1b1-M415(xM269). We'll be sure to include in the revision. Thanks to the person who noticed!

This is Kura Araxas.

I know I sound selfish but I pointed out the similarities between Kura Araxes and Steppic folks. I did point out Kura Araxes had both Kurgan and pit gravesm and horses there predate horses in Sintashta by several hundred years.

So far Kura Araxes period Haplogroups are L1a and R1b.

I pointed out several times here and on different places the importance of Kura Araxes for the question of Indo Europeans. I know it's a bad taste for the haters.

Yep Dave check it out this must be another Steppe dude who got lost somewhere in West Asian highlands. Since Mesolithic and calcolthic Iranian samples did not show any sign of EHG admixture since CHG and ancient Iranian samples show no sign of ANE admixture which is connected to R Haplogroups. So Females must have bvrought this ANE affinity.

From what I have seen from the Bronze Age Armenia samples non of them had mentionably more EHG than the Iranian Calcolthic or mesolithic sample. Dave just let go of it accept that R Haplogroups were widespred around Eurasia by Neolithic, if not early. Villabruna, Early Bronze Age Kura Araxes, Iranian NEOLITHIC. But more samples will come in.

Of course it could be that all these R guys are just confused folks from Eastern Europe.

Have a nice day, I have no desire to discuss this issue now. Just wanted to bring the word out about the R1b in Kura Araxes.

I don't know if I am reading it correctly, so I ask for help. On page 30 there's a graph showing the relationships between WHG, EHG, Levant_N and Iran_N. In the graph below that one, Europe_EN shows to be divided approx in thirds: one third WHG (pink), one third Levant_N (yellow) and one third Iran_N (tan). Does this mean that there was some kind of gene flow from Iran_N in Europe as early as the Neolithic?

I'm now even more strongly leaning towards the idea that there was a lot of ANE/EHG-like admixture in Central Asia and even in South Central Asia before the Neolithic. Iran is the likely gateway for Southwest Asian-type admixture into Asia (perhaps even for the Caucasus).

Ancient SC Asian DNA might show the actual mixing of these two.

It's remarkable Balochis/Makranis/etc have the closet relation to Neolithic Iran but Admixture constantly predicts a very ANE-rich population as their source. Could be "Gedrosian" was real.

The traces of WHG in South Asia, as distinct from excess ANE/EHG, are probably the real relics of the Steppe (so hitting a high of 30-40% Steppe in a few populations, half that in most others, and next to none in most of the South and East).

It's also possible this Neolithic Iranian met ANE/EHG in the Caucasus and Central Asia, and then on to the Steppe and then back into South Asia, but that's a longer ways to physically travel. We need to see ancient SC Asian DNA.

@Gio,"I am seeing that the percentange of "Middle Eastern" mt-DNA in Europeans threw down from 99,9% to 50%"

It's proven that 80% or so of European mtDNA is of Middle Eastern origin. It's not even a debate anymore. We have over 100 mtDNA samples from pre-Neolithic Europe to confirm that most mtDNA in modern Europe arrived with Neolithic migrations from the Middle East.

"My K1a1b1e, sister clade of the most diffused Jewish K1a1b1a, is certainly born in Tuscany and expanded to the Isles very likely during the Roman Empire."

K1a1b1e probably is European or even Italian or even Tuscan. But it's ancestor K1a1b1 arrived from Anatolia about 8,000 years ago. Paleolithic Italians mostly had U5b.

"From this step the next update will throw down to 25% and so on. And, what has to do Northern Anatolia or Caucasus or Iran with the Semitic Middle East?"

In the Stone age people in Anatolia, Caucasus, and "Semetic Middle East" shared ancestry and mtDNA no one else in the world has. I'm not claiming each region is exactly the same. I collectivly call them Middle Eastern because of shared ancestry and mtDNA.

I don't see what the big deal is. 2600 BC isn't old. We have examples of R1b in Germany from 2600 BC to. One Chalcolithic Armenian had mtDNA U4a, typcial of EHG, but no one is making a fuse out of that. If they had EHG mtDNA, why couldn't they have had EHG Y DNA?

No one claimed after finding Y DNA J1 in Mesolithic Karelia that J1 in the Middle East is of European origin. J was the primary lineage of Paleo/Neo Northern West Asia and R1 was the primary lineage of Mesol Russia. There was gene exchange and the finding of R1 or J in one or the other isn't good evidence either one existed in the other region.

"So its placement on the PCA and the R1b haplotype suggest it was influenced by gene flow from the steppes, maybe even from Yamnaya."'

This sample might date from c. 2800 BC, but the Kura-Arax phenomenon begins c. 3400 BC, which is earlier than the Yamnaya (properly defined) culture. So the most likely source is Majkop, which precedes both

But, yeah it seems going from Neolithic Iran to EBA Armenia, there is increasing shift toward the steppe. But we see vice-versa in the steppe going from Mesolithic to YamnayaSo it looks like the Caucasus served as a funnel for people moving in either direction.

Some earlier, Neolithic, Armenian samples would be interesting. I guess it would have been ANF -like , with everything southeast of Armenia being "ZNF" like.

"This sample might date from c. 2800 BC, but the Kura-Arax phenomenon begins c. 3400 BC, which is earlier than the Yamnaya (properly defined) culture. So the most likely source is Majkop, which precedes both"

Or maybe EHG considering they had a high percentage of R1b1 1,000s of years earlier during the Mesolithic.

"Or maybe EHG considering they had a high percentage of R1b1 1,000s of years earlier during the Mesolithic.'

Yes, we all know EHG lived in Russia since at least 8000 BC, thanks Krefter.

But Majkop - whatever its ultimate origins - will have a good chunk of EHG, afterall it was *In Russia and surrounding north Caucasus.

So if you think about it rationally, its far more parasiminous that the BA_Armenian ANE/ EHG impact came from an expansive phenomenon like Majkop than a random 'lost' forager. People move for a reason.

@ Samuel AndrewsOf course I was referring to the Krefter's blog he posted in his post. From 99,9% to 50% are his conclusions.About the fact that 80% of European mt is of Middle Eastern origin:1) I don't accept your definition of Middle East. There is a Semitic Middle East and a not-Semitic Middle East. The question of the fraud that many Jewish geneticists (and historians) are perpetuating from so long has been well exposed from Maggi in two posts above, and those same Jews, above all Ashkenazim, as to the paper of Costa et al. 2013 (and the paper was delayed from at least one year), have more than 90% of European mt.We now know who were those old Natufians: Y some subclades of hg. E and T (and don't think that all the hg E are Natufians or Africans: Italy and Europe have some E from Palaeolitic).2) Not only I've written thousands ol letters about Italian and European mt, but also a scholar paper has demonstrated that there has been a Refugium in Southern Italy of mt hg. HV during the late palaeolitic/mesolithic and HV has been found at Favignana, Sicily, 13000 years ago...3) Thus be cautios, your ideas will end as those of the Middle Eastern origin of Y R1b, which is mine of course: R1b1a2-L23-Z2110*, perhaps in Western Europe/Italy from its birth 7200 years ago. Don't believe to the FTDNA Big Y used above all from YFull which gave to my haplogroup 6100 years. I did a Full Genome with about 400 no calls instead of the 13500 now of Big Y.

I said hg. T because it is old in Middle East, whereas J1 and J2 aren't older than 5000 years and came from elsewhere. Very likely T came Northward as you say, but I said T for not saying that Natufians were only hg. E.

"There are numerous cases where the language of the females becomes dominant eventually. English is the best example against both the Scandinavian males and French speaking Normans."

These absolutely not the proper examples of language surviving due to the females. In both cases the absolute majority of the population, men and women, remained English speakers, not just the females. It can be shown with Y-DNA and it is historically attested that the Normans were a tiny upper layer.

Krefter and Sam are the same person. I never claimed 50% of European mtDNA is Middle Eastern. I've only claimed 80% is. It doesn't matter how you define the Middle East. 80% of European mtDNA is originally from modern day Turkey, Iran, and Caucasus. You can call that land whatever you want to.

Very glad to know that. Perhaps you know that I d0n't like Anonymous persons and I never was Anonymous. At least I know that we have a common ancestress not so long ago in one K1a1b1 girl.Not bad your analysis of the mt haplotypes. I'll follow your blog.

Most of us here had the same opinions about the basics of Middle Eastern diversity, it mostly follows a EEF vs CHG cline. We had differnt opinons on the finer details. Some of my opinons were wrong and some were right.

1: Modelling West Asians as part EEF: I gave Alberto, Matt, and others a hard time for modelling Middle Easterners as EEF+CHG because I didn't think EEF ever lived outside of Anatolia. This turned out correct. Instead like I said, closely related people(Natufians and Levant_Neolithic) to EEF are the source for the "EEF" ancestry in the Middle East.

2: Frequency of CHG-related ancestry in the Middle East: This is where I was wrong. I thought CHG-related ancestry was rare outside of the Caucasus D-stats rejected significant CHG ancestry outside of the Caucasus. I interpreted this as overwhelming evidence that CHG ancestry is indeed small outside of the Caucasus. I ignored the popularity of CHG-related components in ADMIXTURE and eastern shift of all West Asians towards CHG in PCA.

@ Krefter, I'm pretty sure I never said that EEF were necessarily the same population for the Levant Neolithic. As I remember it, the only time we talked about the modeling was where you were insisting on using the Cypriot population for the models, and that was something I didn't totally understand the value of (and still don't, frankly, since there's nothing here that would validate it).

I also don't think this study (unless I've missed it) nails whether ancestry in the Middle East outside the Levant comes more from Anatolia Neolithic or Levant Neolithic. So I don't quite get the basis on which you're saying that EEF never lived outside of Anatolia, if by that you mean they didn't migrate out of Anatolia at all, towards the rest of the ME. One model they propose is even Levant Neolithic as a mixture of Anatolia Neolithic and Natufians.

...

Possibly of interest to some, using their big table of FSTs in SupplementaryDataTable3, I carried out a couple of approaches to cluster modern Europeans, either based on their FST from each other, or FST on the main ancient groups (Anatolia_N, CHG, EHG, Europe_MNChL, Iran_N, Levant_N, Natufian, SHG, Steppe_EMBA, WHG):

Basically almost identical, however, the clustering based on the present day FSTs rather than the distance to the ancients seem to

1. Find more of a split between populations who've probably been drifting apart since the Bronze Age and Iron Age (or have been more heavily drifted during the Bronze and Iron Ages)...

2. While conversely, also uniting populations who have more different ancient ancestry but have had contacts since the Bronze Age and Iron Age (without this homogenising their ancient ancestry!), and who may also have had similar Early Neolithic ancestry (like Cardial vs LBK).

The present day FSTs (particularly without the South Italians) find a structure that's a lot more intuitively based on the modern geography and language divisions, with NNE, NE, Central, NW, NNW (and likewise Sardinians are relatively less distinct in present day FST, reflective of probably recent shared drift with other Europeans after the Bronze Age, despite their high complement of EEF). The ancient FSTs, give us probably the clustering that we would expect based on a general latitude bias for the survival for WHG and Yamnaya.

Seems this shows that (in case we didn't know already) modern based calculators like Eurogenes K15 are not totally redundant with the ancient populations, for oracles that attempt to find recent ancestry.

Many are questioning about the 3 L1a samples found in Armenia from Lazaridis et al., and someone says that it doesn't matter because very likely they belonged to the same nucleous, but what to say about the fact that the oldest haplotype of hg. L has been found in Italy/Sardinia?

Time to repost the comment I made a while back. Getting closer by the day...

"If you read my thesis that is clear - To me R1b Shulaveri were exogenous to the southern Caucasus. And most probably from the steppe, for sure. I dwell endlessly if Volga or Dnieper basin and so forth. And yes R1b current Armenia is “shulaveri”. And also part of northern Iran R1b I think. And also Maykop (at least part)… but those are the ones that stood behind. So M269 and probably L23 with buck loads of Steppe. Makes sense?

Let me try to tell the whole story in a Paragraph:»by 8k bc they were in steppe,»by 7K bc arrive at South Caucasus and were Shulaveri-Shomu,»by end 5k bc “kicked out dogs” by Ubaid J2/j1 that made Kura-araxes culture and south Mesopotamia big civilizations,»by 4.9k bc were at Tell Tsaf for a while, and also in Shiqmin/ Saharonim, »by 4.7K bc as Merimde and El-omari, by 4K bc disappeared again and those who stood were part of Maadi (and some part of Later Badarian),»by 3.7k bc roaming in tassilli and related places as Bovidean phase II (white people pastoral phase),»by 3.5k Bc pushed way by 5.9K kiloyear event and sahara desert birth pushed into south Iberia,»by 3K bc “huge” cities of porto torrão (500ha!!) ,»by 2.9k bc at Zambujal and Vnsp and part of Perdigoes shrine,»by 2,7Bc roaming into rest of Europe (they never stopped acutally).

»By 1K bc in Portugal, as the Oestrimni (people from farwest), they were telling everyone who asked (like periplus the greek mariner): “we are the people that have been living here for long, but coming from a faraway land which we had to flee because of an attack of serpents” (actually the Ubaid/Uruk). That is why Lisbon was called Ophiusa like the Ubaids, by the greeks.

See, simple. Yes, they come from the steppe. But the route to become Bell beakers and R1b Europe was the one I described.  - Wanna bet?"

What about L1a in Armenia EBA?Forget R1b. That I was already sure about. But, what about the L1a? Have I been blaming the “wrong guys”?There were the Shulaveri-Shomu and then suddenly a leveling event happen that made the shulaveri-Shomu disappear in a historical split second (4900 bc was the pinnacle). which I have been blame J1/J2 from south. To me that leveling event, “the coming of the snake people” was hassuna-samarra J2/j1…. So, they seem to be L1a? How does this play with Ubaid period “nuclear explosion” that led to mesoptamia/Sumerians?Because that Kura-araxes R1b is just the leftovers of the naturally lots of R1b from there in middle Neolithic, those that stood behind and did not flee…. But In that region they where replaced by someone and those someones seem to be L1a… coming from… who the hell can help me?

First of all: a bit of research. Haplogroup L2-L595 is found mostly in Europe, where is found their highest diversity. Not just Italy but from Northeast Europe to Southwest Europe. Some ECO of this lineage is found South Caucasus in the Zagros and Taurus Mountains.

The paper confirmed your theory on additional ANE in WHG. However, it models EHG as 70% ANE and 30% WHG if Malta is used, and 75% ANE and 25% WHG if Afontova Gora 2 is used. That reeks like WHG-ish gene flow into ANE. Which made me wonder if that could be something Gravettian-ish. Villabruna clade (WHG is considered Loschbour proper in this paper if I read it right) was a sister clade to Gravettians.

"The paper confirmed your theory on additional ANE in WHG. However, it models EHG as 70% ANE and 30% WHG if Malta is used, and 75% ANE and 25% WHG if Afontova Gora 2 is used. That reeks like WHG-ish gene flow into ANE. Which made me wonder if that could be something Gravettian-ish. Villabruna clade (WHG is considered Loschbour proper in this paper if I read it right) was a sister clade to Gravettians".

Thus do you argue (or fear) that R1b1 arrived from West? And why not also R1a?

What bothers me is- Laziridis got to R1b1 in one of the two samples he got from Kalavan. I truly believe that it turns out R1b because he manage to extract Y-DNA from UF1. He was buried like a true “Shulaveri-Shomu” R1b (contracted sideways, in a Pit, etc). If it had been UF9 instead I think it would not be R1b. He was buried, seated in a specific manner… not at all “r1b”. And we would be inferring a completely different story for “that” G2a, J2, L1a, whatever.

By Bronze age Caucasus was a mess. Kura-araxes was made of lots of different people that kept some of their original rituals. At least in part. – Gosh! Please someone stop sampling cattle and Goats from Goytepe , Aratashen and so forth and sample inhumations!

@Matt,"I'm pretty sure I never said that EEF were necessarily the same population for the Levant Neolithic."

I never accused you of this. What I'm accusing you and others of is modeling Middle Easterners as EEF+CHG when their EEF-type ancestry was from relatives of EEF who lived in the Middle East not actual EEF. You guys did model Middle Easterners as EEF+CHG. If you didn't think Levant Neolithic was the same as EEF then why did you model Middle Easterners as EEF+CHG?

"As I remember it, the only time we talked about the modeling was where you were insisting on using the Cypriot population for the models, and that was something I didn't totally understand the value of (and still don't, frankly, since there's nothing here that would validate it)."

In David's D-stat spreadsheets Cypriot behaves the same way as Anatolia_N except it has slightly lower WHG affinity and significantly lower EEF affinity. Therefore Cypriot is a good proxy for an EEF relative who lived in West Asia, like as we now know Levant_N.

I don't think Cypriot is the same as Levant_N at all. I used to think they were just a brother group of EEF but Lazardis 2016 has shown me otherwise. I think they have significant CHG/ancient Iran ancestry. But for whatever reason David's D-stats can't display this. We'll have to use a differnt strategy than (Chimp, Colmn)(Row, Mbuti) or (Chimp, Row)(Colomn, Mbuti).

@simon "To me it's always been shortsighted to simplify the debate around the PIE homeland to a duel between the steppe theory and Renfrew's Anatolian theory. Yet I know this is what has been done in many papers on ancient DNA and in some papers on the Bayesian modelling of the IE tree. Partly probably because of ignorance on the side of the involved scientists who were not trained linguists, and on the other hand because of the huge publicity Renfrew's theory had received. But there are certainly other geographical areas that might seem to fit as the PIE homeland, somewhat further to the east of Anatolia."

Yes, its not just steppe hypothesis vs Renfrew. I misspoke if it came off that way since I didn't man it that.

I think we have all the genetic evidence needed to conclude that, post Anatolian, PIE originated on the steppe. Afanasievo whom is likely related to tocharians are steppic. The more solid evidence is that the last genetic relation between West Europeans (Italo Celts), Iranians (iranians), and South Asians (indic) is steppic. As I said before, the greeks who branched off no sooner than Italo Celts, don't matter.

The only part of the steppe hypothesis which is not yet "cooperated" by genetics is the origin of the anatolians. But simply based on linguistics I would not place the origin of the anatolians south of the steppe-caucasus border, and more realistically I place it in the steppe.

Krefter: If you didn't think Levant Neolithic was the same as EEF then why did you model Middle Easterners as EEF+CHG?We well, we didn't have any other samples from the ancient Middle East, so use the best proxies? We were certainly trying models with BedouinB as well, if you remember, and modern Levant populations (which was the whole point of us requesting the columns for Palestinian, Syrian, BedouinB).

I don't think Cypriots are a good proxy for Natufians or Levant_Neolithic, either at the moment, or that we had reason to believe they would be at the time.

I think the best proxy in public data at the moment for Levant Neolithic will be Anatolia_Neolithic - part of why I suspect this is the case is that the paper describes the Levant Neolithic as being the best match for the recent non-Mota ancestry in East Africans, and Anatolia Neolithic / EEF / Sardinians previously were the best match for this, not Cypriots. Further, in the FSTs from this paper, Anatolia_Neolithic has a lower FST with Levant_N than do the Cypriots. Anatolia_Neolithic->Levant_N FST is also the lowest FST with Levant_N (thought Anatolia_Neolithic is not the lowest FST with Natufians - that is BedouinA).

We will see what happens when Davidski makes comparisons for shared drift with Levant Neolithic using formal stats and if Cypriots are a better proxy for Levant Neolithic than Anatolia Neolithic then, we can discuss it. If you're saying they will now, and I'm saying they're not, then you can saying I was wrong if it goes that way.

I was very impressed with the paper's sample: I1955, from Iran--termed Iran recent, which in time (c. 1450 BCE) and space (West Zagros) falls into the Mitanni sphere. The Mitanni spoke a Hurrian language with an Indo-Aryan adstrate via personal names. Notice how the Iran_Recent sample is shifted onto the Armenian Bronze Age samples (PCA) and, on admixture has the reddish component from Steppe/EHG/WHG. This is quite different from even the Chacolithic Iranians who lack the red component. Clearly, we are seeing, I would wager, the presence of the Indo-Aryan adstrate that arrives in Iran post-Chalcolithic. I would agree about the complexity of Kura-Araxes in Armenia (EBA). As I read the paper, the Levantine EBA samples (Y chromosomes J1 and likely J2b1-M205) are best approximated as a mixture of PPNB Levantines and Chalcolithic Iranians, not with Armenian EBA. The Levantine EBA are from Jordan (one is EBIII and the other, the J1 is EBIV--a time of major transition in the Southern Levant and thought aeons ago to represent the Amorites in the Southern Levant. All fascinating!

An interesting detail no one seems to have commented on, is that Mal`ta boy seems to have a little "East Eurasian" admixture, as it sits on the same cline of increasing Onge affinity as Amerindians, Siberians, and East Asians do, on that graph where ANE admixture in those populations is demonstrated.

"@ Rob:"The paper confirmed your theory on additional ANE in WHG. However, it models EHG as 70% ANE and 30% WHG if Malta is used, and 75% ANE and 25% WHG if Afontova Gora 2 is used. That reeks like WHG-ish gene flow into ANE. Which made me wonder if that could be something Gravettian-ish. Villabruna clade (WHG is considered Loschbour proper in this paper if I read it right) was a sister clade to Gravettians".

Thus do you argue (or fear) that R1b1 arrived from West? And why not also R1a?"

I think Epoch made that astute observation (? statistically significant)And I echo his remarks reply. Sure, everyone has their own understanding of events and pet theories, but most move with the evidence, eventually. So Im rather dis-attached, actually, but maybe not you because you are a sensitive poet ? ;)

In fact, I'd be over the moon if R1b 'came from Italy" (whatever that means). But one thing i have not seen in your 'thousands of letters which you have written", is how & when did R1 get to Italy in the first place, before it re-expanded out of it. ? You realize its 'cousins' R2 & Q all point way out east, right ?

Are you able to present a coherent synthesis of the genetic data along with other lines of evidence (eg archaeology) to describe in simple terms how R1 expanded from Italy ?

I apologize if I misunderstood that Epoch was the sender of that post.1) You know that I based my research upon the Y and the mt rather than the autosome, not only, but I defined the autosome in Italian like the "potta della troia che ognuno la tira come vuole", that I prefer not to translate, and many doubts about the use of the autosome I get yet, think to the "Mediterranean Islands" that some known people use, even though it is a serious thing, so very few are able to manage it, as the same Davidski says.2) Many years ago we used STRs, mutation rate, variance and other rough instruments, but also with them I used my brain, not believing to what everyone thought, and above all some firm that hadn't all the interest to trouble the waters (fake SNPs, wrong trees, useless tests etc.). So I didn't believe to all the Solons of the MRCA. I trusted my calculations. Perhaps you know my 4 golden principles. Meditate them.3) I found the oldest haplotypes both of R-V88, R1b1-L389*, R-M269* and even more R-L51-PF7589* in Italy (and that against a known firm who hid them, who tested an R-V88 as an R-M269 and so on. I recognize an haplotype without SNPs (there is an R-M335 in the Italy Ftdna Project that the Solon of that project put amongst the R1a!).4) I worked a lot also on the mt, and compare what Krefter/Sam says but read also Costa et al 2013 or De Fanti 2015: I said all that many years before them.5) Of course I think that R1* comes from central Asia, but also that they were amongst the Western European hunter-gatherers and that they passed the Youger Dryas Southwards the Alps, thus expanded Eastwards (some R-L23 subclades) and also to Middle East.6) Italy is a little tested as to other countries, and each person that my friend Marco Grassi tests in Eastern Liguria is a surprise both for the Y and the mt.7) I tested many years ago a few friends and relatives of mine in my Western Tuscany:a) R-M269* Fabrizio Federighib) R-L23 me, my son (of course), Giorgio Tognarellic) R1b1a2, likely U152, Alberto Malvoltid) R1b1a2 (only Y12) Ivano ColtelliNo doubt that R1b has something to do with Tuscany.

The primary problem I had with you guys using Anatolia_N as an ancestor proxy for Middle Easterners is it obvious they aren't an actual important ancestor of Middle Easterners. mtDNA and Y DNA support this idea. Anatolia_N is only important for Europe and Turkey.

What I did was search, by looking at modern DNA, for better proxies for non-CHG/African/Steppe/South Asian ancestors of Middle Easterners. Everyone fits as Cypriot+something else and when I take out the non-CHG/African/Steppe/South Asian side of Middle Easterners it comes out looking like Cypriots.

@Matt,"I think the best proxy in public data at the moment for Levant Neolithic will be Anatolia_Neolithic"

You're correct that Anatolia_N was the best proxy for Levant_N that we had available. However because EEF was a row population Anatolia_Neolithic was not a good ancestor proxy for Middle Easterners. This is because they don't have the EEF-specific ancestry which makes Anatolia_N so close to other EEFs. So you couldn't model them as Anatolia_N+CHG and get a good fit. Cypriot in reality isn't a good proxy for the EEF-like ancestor of Middle Easterners but they behave like such an ancestor in David's spreadsheets which is why I used them.

Now looking back I think because of Cypriot's Eastern ancestry(Iran_Neolithic, CHG) their affinity to EEF row populations was diluted. So my Cypriot score for Middle Easterners(usually 80% or more) was probably collecting Eastern ancestry. Levant_N will definitely be closer to EEF row populations than Cypriot and Middle Easterner's Levant_N scores will be lower than Cypriot scores. But I don't think Levant_N scores will be much differnt.

So I think the mistake I made was that the row populations in David's spreadsheets could accurately display the frequency of Eastern(CHG, Iran_N) ancestry in the Middle East. It couldn't. And so in my analysis CHG/Eastern ancestry was underestimated and Western/EEF_like ancestry was underestimated. But I was right that Anatolia_N isn't an important ancestor of Middle Easterners(xTurkey).

"We were certainly trying models with BedouinB as well, if you remember, and modern Levant populations (which was the whole point of us requesting the columns for Palestinian, Syrian, BedouinB)."

I agree with that because BedouinB are one of the most Western-shifted(PCA, WHG vs ANE affinity, CHG vs EEF affinity) Middle Easterners. But you just have to take the African out of BedouinB. I did this and their non-African side behaves almost exactly the same as Cypriot. That encouraged me to keep using Cypriot.

Thus Europe has two haplotypes (the Western European and the Yeager one) and Middle East only one (the Yeager one).Another proof that R1a*, as R1b1-L389+, descends from the Western European hunter-gatherers.

Can we please move away from the largely irrelevant (to this post) discussion of R1b? There is still an unclear (at least to me) picture regarding Levantine Mesolithic/Neolithic E1b1b. I have noted Krefter and some others mention that the Levantine Natufians were E-M123. The original post by David claims they were E1b1b1b2(x E1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b). Looking at the ISOGG 2016 tree, this means that they were E-PF1961/Z830 (BUT NOT E-M123). Am I missing something here??

@Olympus MonsBecuase R1b has nothing to do with Mesolithic/Neolithic Near Eastern HGs/farmers, but E1b1b has a lot to do with them, apparently. Anyhow, please do not take my initial comment too seriously. Obviously anyone can discuss about any haplogroup they like. No objections..

I reviewed the y-chromosome of I1707 and there is not found "PF7466" position: 13904842 within the y-chromosome. Positive SNPs only give IJK for this sample and anyway is negative for all known main T subclades.

I just found out that both of the samples from the Iranian neolithic are R2! 1945 Iran Neolithic R2a-Y3399 callsI1949 Iran Neolithic pre-R2-M479 callsAccording to the y-dna calls from genetiker. I know know its not official but its interesting to know that both of them are R2.

One thing that perplexes me is how H-mtdna is not found in any pre-bronze age populations anywhere in Europe or the Middle East. Where did it come from? Its nice to know that R1 did not come from the middle east and seems to have been in Eastern Europe and possibly even Tyrol/Italy since the paleolithic (Epigravettian)?.

I think we will have to close this thread as Deccan College has already obtained DNA report for Rakhigarhi India and archeologist of the institute now say their next step is to correlate Saraswathi Civilization with Vedic culture with the help of Sanscrut scholars in the Deccan College.This makes your northern Asian and European DNA analysis and crude speculations useless.

"Rakhigarhi, or Rakhi Garhi (Rakhi Shahpur + Rakhi Khas), is a village in Hisar District in the state of Haryana in India, situated 150 kilometers to the northwest of Delhi. It is the site of a Pre-Indus Valley Civilisation settlement dating to as early as 4600 BCE".

And which haplogroups do you think they will find for disproving the Eastern European hypothesis of the Indo-European languages and proving the OIT?

For example if it is proven same genetic structure remains in Haryana as it was 10 000 years ago(origin of Bhirrana is of that scale)have you to modify your theory as origin of Europeans come through Shortugai?

Results of ancient Indian DNA of Saraswathi is the same as that of majority people in Haryana state in India as Saraswathi is the oldest civilization in the world as of today Sanscrut and allied Prakruts like reconstructed Proto London Europeans have spread to Europe through Elite groups migrated from Saraswathi with modern technology into a hunter gather society as it happened in Hurrian dominated Mithani kingdom

Protoindoeuropean started among R1a1 bearing Saraswathians before 12000 years before present era as the first language and spread to nomadic groups residing in the areas of the Central Asia and spread even to Americas at present.But real patent rights and cord of secrecy for than remains with the Saraswathians and their progeny around Brahmawartha in present Haryana

The Buddha was most probably a White Scythian guy. One of the names of the Buddha used often is ‘Sakya Muni’ which translated to Sage (Munis) of the Sakyas. Now who are the Sakyas? Why they are the Scythians who invaded and conquered Northern India from Central Asia (Southern Ukraine/Southern Russia/ Kazakhstan ). Sythians were called ‘Sakas’ in Sanskrit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Scythians

What did the Scythians look like?

Fromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians

In the late 2nd or early 3rd century AD, the Greek physician Galen declares that Sarmatians, Scythians and other northern peoples have reddish hair.[73][78] The fourth-century Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus wrote that the Alans, a people closely related to the Scythians, were tall, blond and light-eyed.[79] The 4th century bishop of Nyssa Gregory of Nyssa wrote that the Scythians were fair skinned and blond haired.[80] The 5th-century physician Adamantius, who often follow Polemon, describes the Scythians are fair-haired.

In the physical characteristics of Buddha you gethttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_characteristics_of_the_Buddhacharacteristic no. 29 :Eyes deep blue

For more details check out this website. The concept is brilliant.http://thaimangoes.blogspot.in/2009/08/h9.html

Buddha most probably was a Scythian, not only that, the Ashoka chakra which is now the official emblem of the Indian Republic and considered an ancient Indian emblem actually originates from central Asia and came to the Indian subcontinent with the White skinned Scythians! The Ashoka Chakra is also present on the Indian flag!!The Sakas, ‘people of the stag,’ are associated with the animal symbols of the chakravartin, (universal ‘wheel-turning’ sovereign).

The Scythians also introduced the cremation of bodies and the erection of burial mounds, or stupas (topes), previously unknown in India.

You're ignoring the part where they say "related to". The genetic structure in Iran changes from the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic, so Iran wasn't the source of the Iranian-like admixture on the steppe."

Confirms my suspicion from decades ago, that Iran sourced IEs. Early R1b/R1a clearly show differentiation on the Iranian plateau. All of this is nicely in line with a plethora of archaeological and linguistic evidence for the Iranian origin of IEs, well presented at http://new-indology.blogspot.com/

Colin Welling said..."Iranocentrist said...Yes it is quite obviouse now that Iran was the source of steppe IE's."

Do you realize that you are basically only arguing where Pre PIE came from. The last shared heritage of all IE peoples is the steppe. The most recent common ancestor is what makes something "proto". Iranian and Indic came from the steppe. You can try to argue that pre PIE came from Iran... but Iranian came from the steppe.

Pre-PIE vs PIE is a convenient distinction, but one that is not easily and objectively definable. The idea that Iranians "came from the Steppe" has never been well supported, and especially under more recent evidence (for example, the lack of Steppe DNA among modern Iranians). Instead, the evidence reveals Iranians are largely indigenous origins, whom in fact, were founders of many derivative IE groups.

Just admit that you are wrong and butthurt. It's pretty clear based on the genetic evidence from Lazaridis et al. (2016) alone, that Iran sourced much of IE genes, not to mention other lines of evidence.